I want to open up a dialogue- how do you feel about your city? What would you change? What do you love?
Having lived in 11 places I'm highly attuned to a "sense of place"- be it good or bad. But I want to know if other people, especially, non urban planners, ever stop to take stock of how their city "feels." LA can feel "cold," NY is frentic, Boston can be a little full of its self, Chicago is the ignored, underachieving sibling of the jock older sibling, but still rocks out in its own way. "Second City?" Pshaw- we survived the Great Fire of 1871!!! Etc.,
Talk amongst yourselves!
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
What is an urban planner?
Some people who are generous enough to read this blog wonder what does an urban planner do? In short, an urban planner wears many hats!
I confess to having a short attention span when it comes to careers, and variety is definitely the spice of my life. Well, that and cilantro. . . but one of the reasons that drew me to the field of planning is that an urban planner doesn't do just one thing. He or she must be well-versed in a variety of areas.
Although I don't officially have a degree in this field yet, I was able to talk with several professionals in the field including: Paul Scheibel, AICP, principal planner for the city of Visalia, CA, Paul Bernal, associate planner for the city of Visalia, CA, Greg F. Collins, partner at Collins & Schoettler, and Charles Clouse, principal of TPG Consulting. I would like to thank them for their time and their generosity in giving me a glimpse into their professional world.
(it should also be noted that none of these are listed in order of importance:)
It could be said that an urban planner is one part civil engineer, one part architect, a little bit of a landscape architect, a geographer, certainly an unofficial economist, an amateur sociologist, an environmentalist, and definitely a diplomat.
An urban planner may help determine if we're getting another Starbucks or hookah bar, but he or she also has to collaborate with the civil engineers regarding the size of the parking lots, waste management, street lights, etc., It wouldn't hurt an urban planner to know how said Starbucks or hookah bar, the actual structure, is constructed so he or she can talk rooflines, foundations, and so forth with the architect(s), contractor(s), and developer(s). And of course, more green never hurt anyone, so if an urban planner can speak knowledgeably about the type of landscaping involved in a new project, including water management, irrigation, etc., more power to him or her. Also being aware of the type of soil, elevation, and other elements that turn on a geographer is important. Not to mention the hot buttons that will be pushed when the environmental folks come to weigh in. Did the urban planner know that there is an endangered little frog that has his little welcome mat laid out where that new Target wants to be? The urban planner better know.
He or she also better know if this new Target is within the city's best interests, thereby donning his or her economist's thinking cap. An urban planner is also a bit of a sociologist- gauging the "feel" of the people in the city he or she works for, or the type of people that will utilize the project he or she is working on if he or she is in the private sector. And finally, if nothing else, an urban planner is a diplomat.
He or she must sit in on town meetings, if he or she works for the city and have to explain and cajole people into accepting whatever proposed plan is, in fact, a win-win for everyone. Getting people to come around to this point of view is not nearly as easy as it sounds. Remember asking Mom or Dad if you could stay out until 11 PM on a school night when you were in high school? Imagine M & D x 200. Keep smiling and nodding and perhaps they'll come around to see your side.
These are the main roles I was able to ascertain an urban planner must fill, and doubtless, he or she feels like they are asked to be a miracle-worker on some days. But it is the very challenge of wearing so many hats and being knowledgeable of so many varied fields that invigorates me and makes me want to plunge in headfirst into the field of literally shaping the future!
I confess to having a short attention span when it comes to careers, and variety is definitely the spice of my life. Well, that and cilantro. . . but one of the reasons that drew me to the field of planning is that an urban planner doesn't do just one thing. He or she must be well-versed in a variety of areas.
Although I don't officially have a degree in this field yet, I was able to talk with several professionals in the field including: Paul Scheibel, AICP, principal planner for the city of Visalia, CA, Paul Bernal, associate planner for the city of Visalia, CA, Greg F. Collins, partner at Collins & Schoettler, and Charles Clouse, principal of TPG Consulting. I would like to thank them for their time and their generosity in giving me a glimpse into their professional world.
(it should also be noted that none of these are listed in order of importance:)
It could be said that an urban planner is one part civil engineer, one part architect, a little bit of a landscape architect, a geographer, certainly an unofficial economist, an amateur sociologist, an environmentalist, and definitely a diplomat.
An urban planner may help determine if we're getting another Starbucks or hookah bar, but he or she also has to collaborate with the civil engineers regarding the size of the parking lots, waste management, street lights, etc., It wouldn't hurt an urban planner to know how said Starbucks or hookah bar, the actual structure, is constructed so he or she can talk rooflines, foundations, and so forth with the architect(s), contractor(s), and developer(s). And of course, more green never hurt anyone, so if an urban planner can speak knowledgeably about the type of landscaping involved in a new project, including water management, irrigation, etc., more power to him or her. Also being aware of the type of soil, elevation, and other elements that turn on a geographer is important. Not to mention the hot buttons that will be pushed when the environmental folks come to weigh in. Did the urban planner know that there is an endangered little frog that has his little welcome mat laid out where that new Target wants to be? The urban planner better know.
He or she also better know if this new Target is within the city's best interests, thereby donning his or her economist's thinking cap. An urban planner is also a bit of a sociologist- gauging the "feel" of the people in the city he or she works for, or the type of people that will utilize the project he or she is working on if he or she is in the private sector. And finally, if nothing else, an urban planner is a diplomat.
He or she must sit in on town meetings, if he or she works for the city and have to explain and cajole people into accepting whatever proposed plan is, in fact, a win-win for everyone. Getting people to come around to this point of view is not nearly as easy as it sounds. Remember asking Mom or Dad if you could stay out until 11 PM on a school night when you were in high school? Imagine M & D x 200. Keep smiling and nodding and perhaps they'll come around to see your side.
These are the main roles I was able to ascertain an urban planner must fill, and doubtless, he or she feels like they are asked to be a miracle-worker on some days. But it is the very challenge of wearing so many hats and being knowledgeable of so many varied fields that invigorates me and makes me want to plunge in headfirst into the field of literally shaping the future!
It never rains in California, but we've got problems all our own!
I've lived in 11 places (and counting) in 25 years and the majority of my research into urban planning has focused on Midwestern and Northeastern cities. I did attend college in Savannah, GA, but the South's relationship to growth defies categorization. Apparently, Houston is one of the hot new places to be, according to an op-ed in Newsweek, June 22, 2008 www.newsweek.com/id/142633 Doesn't make it any less humid in summer yet so cold it snows in winter, it's like the Midwest, but with a drawl. . .
Also, having gone to school in Savannah, and having family in Matthews, NC, a suburb of Charlotte, I've seen first-hand the incredible growth that Charlotte and Atlanta are experiencing. Savannah too, is enjoying its revival, thanks in part to my alma mater's decision to build a downtown campus, but it doesn't have nearly the growth patterns that Atlanta is experiencing.
But I didn't realize that Los Angeles has challenges, uniquely all its own, which warrant its own metropolitan policy until I came across this excellent document, put forth by USC.
Summary Report
USC Southern California Studies Center
Urban Policy Seminar Series 2001–2002
Moderated by Antonio Villaraigosa & Jennifer Wolch
Principal Authors
William Fulton
Jennifer Wolch
Antonio Villaraigosa
Susan Weaver
Co-Sponsored by:
USC Center for Sustainable Cities
USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
With support from:
USC Urban Initiative
The John Randolph and Dora Haynes Foundation
In their report the authors recommend that Los Angeles adopt a "5-point action plan for metropolitan L.A.," which is as follows:
Grow Smarter:
As the region runs out of land, we must learn to use our land and resources better
and more efficiently to accommodate future growth.
■ Level the Playing Field for Infill Development
■ Encourage Housing Construction and Homeownership
■Manage the Car
Grow Safer: As we continue to add population in existing neighborhoods and communities, it becomes imperative to improve their safety.
■ Connect Public Safety to the Neighborhood
■ Balance Gang Suppression with Prevention and Intervention
■ Improve Safety in Transportation
■ Prioritize Earthquake Preparedness
Grow Greener: The region’s metropolitan development in the 20th Century inflicted great harm on the natural environment. In order to sustain metropolitan L.A. in the 21st Century, we must actively focus on restoring the natural environment rather than merely refraining from damaging it more.
■ Conserve Energy and Natural Resources
■ Promote Environmental Justice
■ Make the Metropolis More Permeable
Grow Together: As our region has expanded, it has also grown inequitably. The gap between rich and poor has become wider, as has the gap between the well-being of different communi- ties in the region. In the 21st Century, our growth must be more equitably
distributed, both economically and geographically.
■ Narrow the Economic Divide
■ Promote Equitable Economic Development at the Regional Level
■ Connect Neighborhoods to Regional Job Opportunities
Grow More Civic Minded: We cannot accomplish any of the other four goals without nurturing greater civic-
mindedness and commitment among the people of our region, especially immigrants
and others often excluded from participation in public affairs.
■ Broaden Civic Involvement
■ Know More about the Region and Its Communities
■ Create Benchmarks to Measure Progress
Obviously, they go into more details in their report. But I found the regionally-specific circumstances fascinating and I have now shifted my focus in emphasis on what I want to do as a planner.
Also, having gone to school in Savannah, and having family in Matthews, NC, a suburb of Charlotte, I've seen first-hand the incredible growth that Charlotte and Atlanta are experiencing. Savannah too, is enjoying its revival, thanks in part to my alma mater's decision to build a downtown campus, but it doesn't have nearly the growth patterns that Atlanta is experiencing.
But I didn't realize that Los Angeles has challenges, uniquely all its own, which warrant its own metropolitan policy until I came across this excellent document, put forth by USC.
Summary Report
USC Southern California Studies Center
Urban Policy Seminar Series 2001–2002
Moderated by Antonio Villaraigosa & Jennifer Wolch
Principal Authors
William Fulton
Jennifer Wolch
Antonio Villaraigosa
Susan Weaver
Co-Sponsored by:
USC Center for Sustainable Cities
USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
With support from:
USC Urban Initiative
The John Randolph and Dora Haynes Foundation
In their report the authors recommend that Los Angeles adopt a "5-point action plan for metropolitan L.A.," which is as follows:
Grow Smarter:
As the region runs out of land, we must learn to use our land and resources better
and more efficiently to accommodate future growth.
■ Level the Playing Field for Infill Development
■ Encourage Housing Construction and Homeownership
■Manage the Car
Grow Safer: As we continue to add population in existing neighborhoods and communities, it becomes imperative to improve their safety.
■ Connect Public Safety to the Neighborhood
■ Balance Gang Suppression with Prevention and Intervention
■ Improve Safety in Transportation
■ Prioritize Earthquake Preparedness
Grow Greener: The region’s metropolitan development in the 20th Century inflicted great harm on the natural environment. In order to sustain metropolitan L.A. in the 21st Century, we must actively focus on restoring the natural environment rather than merely refraining from damaging it more.
■ Conserve Energy and Natural Resources
■ Promote Environmental Justice
■ Make the Metropolis More Permeable
Grow Together: As our region has expanded, it has also grown inequitably. The gap between rich and poor has become wider, as has the gap between the well-being of different communi- ties in the region. In the 21st Century, our growth must be more equitably
distributed, both economically and geographically.
■ Narrow the Economic Divide
■ Promote Equitable Economic Development at the Regional Level
■ Connect Neighborhoods to Regional Job Opportunities
Grow More Civic Minded: We cannot accomplish any of the other four goals without nurturing greater civic-
mindedness and commitment among the people of our region, especially immigrants
and others often excluded from participation in public affairs.
■ Broaden Civic Involvement
■ Know More about the Region and Its Communities
■ Create Benchmarks to Measure Progress
Obviously, they go into more details in their report. But I found the regionally-specific circumstances fascinating and I have now shifted my focus in emphasis on what I want to do as a planner.
Gentrification
Gentrification is a seemingly benign word, but it has insidious connotations like yuppie and Barnes and Noble- about the latter I am totally kidding. I probably love the Noble Barn more than life itself.
But gentrification can be like a cancer. At first you don't notice it until you realize its sweeping effect and the prospect of returning to life as you knew it is pretty bleak.
I won't bore you with the details of the history of gentrification. But Wikipedia has a well-written article on the subject.
Suffice to say, gentrification is everywhere. Clearly, its symptoms are most manifest in major cities where there are more areas that fall into economic decline stranding the economically-challenged, making it unable for them to leave, then poor students/starving artists, who prefer cheap rent over a cool zip code move in, then the bohemians and (ugh) hipsters follow their lead, making the place all boho-chic with their restaurants and galleries. And soon Parker and Ashleigh have caught the whiff of la boheme and are snapping up condos and causing the rents to skyrocket. Meanwhile, the students and all the bohemians who are still slinging coffee at Starbucks and not able to cash in on all these nouveau money are priced out of the very areas they, unintentionally, helped revive. To say nothing of the financially poor people who were undoubtedly forced out as the beatniks were moving in with their bongos.
(a sidenote- there is an interesting book on the students and bohemians who help lend an air of bonhomie to the gentrified areas, yet are priced out of living in the areas whose atmospheres they cultivate. It's called Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City by: Richard Lloyd. I admit I haven't read it yet and the guy himself didn't actually live in Wicker Park, he was just a visiting sociologist, but he does make valid points. Available at amazon.com)
It's weird, even disorienting for people who've lived in an area long enough to remember when it wasn't advisable to be in Lincoln Park or Silver Lake after dark, and now it's the place to be seen after hours.
But this is happening in cities that frankly aren't as hip as say, Chicago or New York. In Milwaukee, for example, the downtown, slight as it may be, and frankly charming, has experienced an economic revival thanks to the reclaiming of the Historic Third Ward, which has ushered in many a chic cafe and boutique along with warehouses-turned-artists' lofts, a thought that was definitely foreign in 1970. Recommended dining: go to the Ale House on the river front. Their food and micro-brews are awesome and situated on the river makes for excellent summer dining. I also should point out that the East Side, Walker's Point, and Bay View are also all experiencing a revitalization according to local sources.
And if you're there check out Milwaukee's Art Museum, or MAM, which boasts the honor of being Santiago Calatrava's first American commission. If you're feeling especially intrepid, be there when the museum opens and the "wings" of the Calatrava addition "open."
Every time one seems new evidence of gentrification one assumes that it will go on and on ad infinitium. But I have enclosed a link to a fascinating article called, "the Embers of Gentrification" by Adam Stenbergh, from New York Magazine, 11-12-2007, which postulates that this may not be carved in granite (countertops).
This article in an extremely well written format examines the dying out of a former hot-spot. I haven't been to Red Hook recently, so I can't attest to its current state. But it is interesting to consider that the phenomenon of gentrification may not self-perpetuating forever and ever? There may be light at the end of the Pottery Barn J. Crew yuppie tunnel? The knob on the door is probably from Restoration Hardware, but if it stops the vicious cycle, I'll do whatever it takes to knock that sucker down!
Gentrification is particularly disheartening to the people who have lived in an area and enjoy its scruffy non-homogenized charm. San Francisco, one of my spiritual homes in the US, has fallen victim to gentrification thanks to the tech boom that caused rents to reach the stratosphere and caused the literal mass exodus of hundreds of artists.
Another recommended book is Hollow City: the Siege of San Francisco and the Crisis of American Urbanism by: Rebecca Solnit and Susan Schwartzenberg.
Even though we are currently facing a recession, prices for real estate in San Francisco remain astronomically high. Again, this is an example of gentrification's cancerous-like effect. I have family friends where the father commutes two hours each way (!) every day to work in the city. And it's not due to lack of good schooling, if you can afford to send your kids to school in San Francisco proper, they'll be getting some of the best education in the nation.
Chicago is another example. Gentrification has swept through at a wildfire-like pace. Only one example is Lincoln Park, which used to be a rougher section of town. Now you'd never know that walking down North Ave. (which actually runs east-west, but whatever) One is flocked by Crate and Barrel, J. Crew, Pottery Barn, Whole Foods, Victoria's Secret, etc.,- a yuppie's nirvana.
But gentrification can be like a cancer. At first you don't notice it until you realize its sweeping effect and the prospect of returning to life as you knew it is pretty bleak.
I won't bore you with the details of the history of gentrification. But Wikipedia has a well-written article on the subject.
Suffice to say, gentrification is everywhere. Clearly, its symptoms are most manifest in major cities where there are more areas that fall into economic decline stranding the economically-challenged, making it unable for them to leave, then poor students/starving artists, who prefer cheap rent over a cool zip code move in, then the bohemians and (ugh) hipsters follow their lead, making the place all boho-chic with their restaurants and galleries. And soon Parker and Ashleigh have caught the whiff of la boheme and are snapping up condos and causing the rents to skyrocket. Meanwhile, the students and all the bohemians who are still slinging coffee at Starbucks and not able to cash in on all these nouveau money are priced out of the very areas they, unintentionally, helped revive. To say nothing of the financially poor people who were undoubtedly forced out as the beatniks were moving in with their bongos.
(a sidenote- there is an interesting book on the students and bohemians who help lend an air of bonhomie to the gentrified areas, yet are priced out of living in the areas whose atmospheres they cultivate. It's called Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City by: Richard Lloyd. I admit I haven't read it yet and the guy himself didn't actually live in Wicker Park, he was just a visiting sociologist, but he does make valid points. Available at amazon.com)
It's weird, even disorienting for people who've lived in an area long enough to remember when it wasn't advisable to be in Lincoln Park or Silver Lake after dark, and now it's the place to be seen after hours.
But this is happening in cities that frankly aren't as hip as say, Chicago or New York. In Milwaukee, for example, the downtown, slight as it may be, and frankly charming, has experienced an economic revival thanks to the reclaiming of the Historic Third Ward, which has ushered in many a chic cafe and boutique along with warehouses-turned-artists' lofts, a thought that was definitely foreign in 1970. Recommended dining: go to the Ale House on the river front. Their food and micro-brews are awesome and situated on the river makes for excellent summer dining. I also should point out that the East Side, Walker's Point, and Bay View are also all experiencing a revitalization according to local sources.
And if you're there check out Milwaukee's Art Museum, or MAM, which boasts the honor of being Santiago Calatrava's first American commission. If you're feeling especially intrepid, be there when the museum opens and the "wings" of the Calatrava addition "open."
Every time one seems new evidence of gentrification one assumes that it will go on and on ad infinitium. But I have enclosed a link to a fascinating article called, "the Embers of Gentrification" by Adam Stenbergh, from New York Magazine, 11-12-2007, which postulates that this may not be carved in granite (countertops).
This article in an extremely well written format examines the dying out of a former hot-spot. I haven't been to Red Hook recently, so I can't attest to its current state. But it is interesting to consider that the phenomenon of gentrification may not self-perpetuating forever and ever? There may be light at the end of the Pottery Barn J. Crew yuppie tunnel? The knob on the door is probably from Restoration Hardware, but if it stops the vicious cycle, I'll do whatever it takes to knock that sucker down!
Gentrification is particularly disheartening to the people who have lived in an area and enjoy its scruffy non-homogenized charm. San Francisco, one of my spiritual homes in the US, has fallen victim to gentrification thanks to the tech boom that caused rents to reach the stratosphere and caused the literal mass exodus of hundreds of artists.
Another recommended book is Hollow City: the Siege of San Francisco and the Crisis of American Urbanism by: Rebecca Solnit and Susan Schwartzenberg.
Even though we are currently facing a recession, prices for real estate in San Francisco remain astronomically high. Again, this is an example of gentrification's cancerous-like effect. I have family friends where the father commutes two hours each way (!) every day to work in the city. And it's not due to lack of good schooling, if you can afford to send your kids to school in San Francisco proper, they'll be getting some of the best education in the nation.
Chicago is another example. Gentrification has swept through at a wildfire-like pace. Only one example is Lincoln Park, which used to be a rougher section of town. Now you'd never know that walking down North Ave. (which actually runs east-west, but whatever) One is flocked by Crate and Barrel, J. Crew, Pottery Barn, Whole Foods, Victoria's Secret, etc.,- a yuppie's nirvana.
Downtown revival
There is a great book called Downtown, Inc.: How America Rebuilds Cities by Bernard J. Frieden and Lynne B. Sagalyn that I picked up completely by accident at a great bookstore on Haight Street in San Francisco. (Forever After Books, 1475 Haight St.) Although it is a little dated, (original publishing date July 1, 1991) it details how some of the downtown shopping centers and public centers came to be through public entrepreneurship and public-private entrepreneurship.
Again, a little history is in order. During/after the Industrial Revolution people did their shopping downtown, as that is where everyone lived and the suburbs were not even a twinkle in a developer's eye. But once the suburbs came to be, people did their shopping in the suburbs because that's where they lived.
In fact, people began to stay away from the downtowns- for numerous reasons. As more and more prosperous people moved away from the downtowns, people began to see the declining downtowns as dirty, dangerous, stressful to navigate, and parking was non-existent. However characteristics were absent in sunny, sterile suburbia while ample parking abounded.
People used to shop the downtown department stores, but even some of the major department stores packed up for greener pastures. And while some stores stayed, ensconced in their beautiful buildings, some never recovered from the economic blow. Chicago's beautiful Carson Pierre Scott building, designed by Chicago architect, Louis Sullivan (inventor of the skyscraper and mentor to Frank Lloyd Wright) closed its beautiful iron doors last year, February 21, 2007.
My alma mater's library, the Jen Library, in Savannah, GA is housed in a former downtown department store.
And don't get some people started on what they would consider nothing short of a bastardization of their beloved Chicago institution Marshall Field's being turned into another Macy's. The building has not been altered except for cosmetic signage, but the feeling has changed.
Obviously, it need be pointed out that some flagship stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Bloomingdale's in New York never left, they only expanded. But other department stores, some of equal status, others much lower, closed their doors, even in the cities of their birth.
However, some urban planners and intrepid developers thought that they could lure the crowds back to the very places that they had fled. Part of this was due to the fact that many national stores had overextended themselves in suburbia and needed new markets.
Like I said, this book is a little dated and it's weird thinking of shopping areas like Chicago's Water Tower Place as anything but a tourist stop along the Magnificent Mile if you've been there in the past five years. But historically it's fascinating reading learning about the steps needed to be taken to bring to life some of the urban market places that seem so commonplace now, but were innovative for their time. Boston's Quincy Market is cited. As is Seattle's Pike Place Market and many other locations that thanks to these successful efforts.
This is not to say that this movement has not had its critics. (Jeff Ferrell and his work, Tearing Down the Streets: Adventures in Urban Anarchy is one particularly vitrolic example. I had a hard time trying to see his side of the story I was so busy wiping the angry spittle that emanated from the pages. )
This is not to say that a new shopping center is the cure-all, Band-Aid solution for every ailing downtown in America, but say what you will about building downtown shopping centers. If nothing else it points to the enduring spirit of capitalism and its power to wrest many a city back from the edge thanks to America's never-ending quest for stuff and novelty.
Again, a little history is in order. During/after the Industrial Revolution people did their shopping downtown, as that is where everyone lived and the suburbs were not even a twinkle in a developer's eye. But once the suburbs came to be, people did their shopping in the suburbs because that's where they lived.
In fact, people began to stay away from the downtowns- for numerous reasons. As more and more prosperous people moved away from the downtowns, people began to see the declining downtowns as dirty, dangerous, stressful to navigate, and parking was non-existent. However characteristics were absent in sunny, sterile suburbia while ample parking abounded.
People used to shop the downtown department stores, but even some of the major department stores packed up for greener pastures. And while some stores stayed, ensconced in their beautiful buildings, some never recovered from the economic blow. Chicago's beautiful Carson Pierre Scott building, designed by Chicago architect, Louis Sullivan (inventor of the skyscraper and mentor to Frank Lloyd Wright) closed its beautiful iron doors last year, February 21, 2007.
My alma mater's library, the Jen Library, in Savannah, GA is housed in a former downtown department store.
And don't get some people started on what they would consider nothing short of a bastardization of their beloved Chicago institution Marshall Field's being turned into another Macy's. The building has not been altered except for cosmetic signage, but the feeling has changed.
Obviously, it need be pointed out that some flagship stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Bloomingdale's in New York never left, they only expanded. But other department stores, some of equal status, others much lower, closed their doors, even in the cities of their birth.
However, some urban planners and intrepid developers thought that they could lure the crowds back to the very places that they had fled. Part of this was due to the fact that many national stores had overextended themselves in suburbia and needed new markets.
Like I said, this book is a little dated and it's weird thinking of shopping areas like Chicago's Water Tower Place as anything but a tourist stop along the Magnificent Mile if you've been there in the past five years. But historically it's fascinating reading learning about the steps needed to be taken to bring to life some of the urban market places that seem so commonplace now, but were innovative for their time. Boston's Quincy Market is cited. As is Seattle's Pike Place Market and many other locations that thanks to these successful efforts.
This is not to say that this movement has not had its critics. (Jeff Ferrell and his work, Tearing Down the Streets: Adventures in Urban Anarchy is one particularly vitrolic example. I had a hard time trying to see his side of the story I was so busy wiping the angry spittle that emanated from the pages. )
This is not to say that a new shopping center is the cure-all, Band-Aid solution for every ailing downtown in America, but say what you will about building downtown shopping centers. If nothing else it points to the enduring spirit of capitalism and its power to wrest many a city back from the edge thanks to America's never-ending quest for stuff and novelty.
Urban renewal, not as good as it sounds
If you are reading this, you have survived my rant about how the suburbs came to be (thoughts on the dreaded sprawl later).
Well, dear reader, suffice to say that the lure of the suburbs was strong, mighty strong and after we kicked Nazi butt in World War II masses of people, enticed by the new roads and cheap mortgage rates, headed out to the suburbs.
Unfortunately, not everyone was able to claim a stake in this utopia. Those who were poor, and were often a minority race as well, were left in the cities. Because of their economic status conditions tended to slide toward the not good side. Repairs went untended, crime increased, and downtown/inner cities began to acquire the unfair (and often untrue) reputation that has plagued them to this day- dirty and dangerous.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the urban planners of the late 1940's through the 1970's, and even into the early 1980's looked at the disrepair that our nation's cities had fallen into and decided that it was cheaper to pull the plug, if you will, then perform triage. So that's exactly what they did. Veiled under the innocuous title of "urban renewal," many cities bulldozed blighted areas. In some cases they provided vouchers for the soon-to-be-displaced residents. In other cases, taking advantage of the people's lack of political power, they simply steamrolled their way, both literally and figuratively.
Leaving behind vacant lots, some of which are still vacant to this day. One need only drive around Kanye West's old stompin' grounds, Lawndale, Chicago, to see what I am talking about. I lived there for a few months and it is a tough and gritty place, where children are still raised and grow, but rarely escape.
The problem with vacant lots is that it can increase crime. And indeed it did. Empty lots became prime drug dealing grounds, ideal locations for gang wars, dirty needles, etc., This is similar to the "Broken Windows" theory from Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities by: George L. Kelling and Catherine Coles. The book, in turn, was based on an article entitled "Broken Windows" by James Q. Wilson amd George L. Kelling, which was published in the Atlantic Monthly March 1982 (information courtesy of wikipedia.org). In a nutshell, the broken window theory states that when a window goes unrepaired it shows a lack of pride in one's home, in one's neighborhood. This lets less-than-do-gooders know that other destructive activities are permissible. Therefore, if the windows aren't being repaired, then who's to say that anyone's going to call the cops if someone "shady" is in the neighborhood. Then "shady" people lead to drug dealers standing brazenly on the street corners and gang leaders strutting like they own the streets, which in all likelyhood they do because, if something as minor as a window isn't repaired, why would anyone bother to care about the big stuff either?
However, in the 1970's urban planning, with the benefit of hindsight, realized that urban renewal didn't deliver the way it had been proposed it would. But downtown cities were still in trouble.
Well, dear reader, suffice to say that the lure of the suburbs was strong, mighty strong and after we kicked Nazi butt in World War II masses of people, enticed by the new roads and cheap mortgage rates, headed out to the suburbs.
Unfortunately, not everyone was able to claim a stake in this utopia. Those who were poor, and were often a minority race as well, were left in the cities. Because of their economic status conditions tended to slide toward the not good side. Repairs went untended, crime increased, and downtown/inner cities began to acquire the unfair (and often untrue) reputation that has plagued them to this day- dirty and dangerous.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the urban planners of the late 1940's through the 1970's, and even into the early 1980's looked at the disrepair that our nation's cities had fallen into and decided that it was cheaper to pull the plug, if you will, then perform triage. So that's exactly what they did. Veiled under the innocuous title of "urban renewal," many cities bulldozed blighted areas. In some cases they provided vouchers for the soon-to-be-displaced residents. In other cases, taking advantage of the people's lack of political power, they simply steamrolled their way, both literally and figuratively.
Leaving behind vacant lots, some of which are still vacant to this day. One need only drive around Kanye West's old stompin' grounds, Lawndale, Chicago, to see what I am talking about. I lived there for a few months and it is a tough and gritty place, where children are still raised and grow, but rarely escape.
The problem with vacant lots is that it can increase crime. And indeed it did. Empty lots became prime drug dealing grounds, ideal locations for gang wars, dirty needles, etc., This is similar to the "Broken Windows" theory from Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities by: George L. Kelling and Catherine Coles. The book, in turn, was based on an article entitled "Broken Windows" by James Q. Wilson amd George L. Kelling, which was published in the Atlantic Monthly March 1982 (information courtesy of wikipedia.org). In a nutshell, the broken window theory states that when a window goes unrepaired it shows a lack of pride in one's home, in one's neighborhood. This lets less-than-do-gooders know that other destructive activities are permissible. Therefore, if the windows aren't being repaired, then who's to say that anyone's going to call the cops if someone "shady" is in the neighborhood. Then "shady" people lead to drug dealers standing brazenly on the street corners and gang leaders strutting like they own the streets, which in all likelyhood they do because, if something as minor as a window isn't repaired, why would anyone bother to care about the big stuff either?
However, in the 1970's urban planning, with the benefit of hindsight, realized that urban renewal didn't deliver the way it had been proposed it would. But downtown cities were still in trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)